How Would You Know If the World Was Ruled by Evil?
What is evil? How would we know if the world was ruled by it?
Evil
Modern definitions of evil are vague and unhelpful. For example, Kindle readers are linked to the Oxford Dictionary, third edition, from 2010, which states:
Evil is an immorality, wickedness, and depravity that is profound. These are evil's characteristics. It's manifested through people's actions; thus we wouldn't call animals or acts of nature evil.
Evil has effects that are harmful or undesirable. But ruling is a means to resolve human conflict. If there was no conflict, there would be no need for ruling. Any act one party views as immoral, wicked, and depraved will necessarily be viewed as, at least, undesirable if not also harmful. Thus, to rule, by this definition, is an inherent act of evil, regardless if done through representative democracy, technocratic decree by committee, or by monarch or dictator.
We need a narrower definition of evil to avoid the above dilemma. We need to define "good," and define evil as in opposition to good and good as in opposition to evil. The aforementioned dictionary defines good as "that which is morally right; righteous." Righteous is defined as "morally right or justifiable."
The dictionaries we deploy to help us in our search for good versus evil are unhelpful. Good and evil has a spiritual quality to it that human language, perhaps, can't precisely define. God is good. Satan is evil. If we look to historical references of what goes against God, perhaps we then know what is evil. Not all my readers might be religious. Is belief in God and his laws necessary to believe in evil?
Regardless, we know evil must exist. Knowledge of its existence is a necessary component of being amongst the right. If it didn't, we wouldn't have laws outlawing immoral acts. Law is an instrument to minimize the material effects of evil so civilization can prosper.
For example, we know a 40-year-old man convincing a 12-year-old boy or girl to engage in sexual acts with him is immoral [*1]. A man should be punished for this act, regardless of a 12-year-old's purported consent to it. A godless bureaucrat lawyer proposing laws might cite long-term studies on degraded mental health for the twelve-year-old and his/her inability to reasonably consent to sexual acts when justifying punishment. But is proof of harm necessary?
Aborting a child for a convenience purpose presents a similar dilemma. The mother justifies her choice to terminate the pregnancy for a convenience purpose by pointing to the inconvenience and material harm the nine months of carrying a fetus to term imposes (we assume adoption is viable). The fetus has a heart beat, and may even feel pain, but isn't conscious enough to be aware of his/her existence, yet, like a child is. The mother considers the act of inhibiting her choice to kill the fetus undesirable. If the fetus is not yet conscious enough, perhaps his/her killing shouldn't qualify as harm to human life. The harm to the mother in imposing the birth burden, however, is clear and is more visible in our material realm our various laws govern. This is the foundation for the legal perspective we call "pro-choice."
Law focuses on the seen, material sensory experience, and very little on abstractions. Pregnancy sets a chain of events in motion for a fetus to develop into a human life. If we traveled into the future post-birth, we infer the man/woman alive wouldn't consent to an abortive act through time-travel nullifying his/her existence. Disturbing the post-pregnancy chain of events leading to the birth through a killing for a convenience purpose is clearly evil. But a rational argument can be made to justify the act if we ignore this more-abstract perspective.
Can all evil be similarly rationalized? If a theoretical utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest many) argument can be made, can all killings, compelling others against their will, and/or material harm to others be justified? Is evil merely a matter of perspective?
A functional civilization requires at least a general agreement between a strong majority of its population on what acts are labeled evil versus good. Things like the marginal tax rate, unemployment benefits, or the size and scope of punishments are debatable. But no civilization can function unless near-everyone within it agrees that acts like murder, rape, and theft should be prohibited and punished in some manner. That is, a jurisdiction can't last or function unless its subjects have a general agreement on what evil is. Otherwise, obedience to and application of laws ensues conflict that can't be adequately resolved by a jurisdiction's rulers.
Do/did we all agree that wearing a mask slows the spread of COVID-19 amongst the dreaded "asymptomatic carriers?" Or do/did we all agree that wearing a mask not only doesn't do this but causes harm when worn for hours a day [*2]? Is refusal to wear a mask evil? Or, is compelling someone to wear of a mask for hours at months or years-on-end, when multiple studies show harm it can cause, evil?
A World of Evil
A core component of evil, as I've discussed before, is wickedness [*3]. In Bart Sibrel's numerous interviews, he discusses how the etymology of wicked comes from the wick of a candle, two wicks of wax twisted together, representing the truth and the lie. Wicked is mixing a degree of lie with a degree of truth in order to deceive. Outright lying is too obvious and ineffective compared to wicked acts, which are cloaked in a degree of truth.
This definition of wicked avoids discussion of good and evil. But, rarely can lying be justified for the greater good. More often, when someone is lying, especially in a wicked manner, it is to engage in acts that benefit one party at the expense of another without objection from the expensed the party, which has been deceived into accepting the act.
Maybe the whole world isn't ruled by evil, since we have multiple overlapping jurisdictions that rule over it. But, certainly some rulers of certain jurisdictions in human history were evil. How would we know if evil ruled the world?
Obvious evil, without an element of wickedness, can't rule the world due to the size of that jurisdiction. Good people would object to evil rulers by banding together into their own jurisdictions and defend themselves against outside control. Empires, regardless of whether they're good or evil, never last [*4], since they involve nations of people ruling over others. Nations of people naturally have disagreement on how best to be ruled, regardless of whether the rules imposed are evil or good, and will eventually seize an opportunity to separate and rule themselves.
The only rational way for evil to rule the world is to cloak its rule and/or its appearance. That is, (1) if we see evil effects, we wouldn't notice the proxy rulers controlling the rules we are subject to. We'd blame incompetent rulers we all independently elected or were anointed that independently, at least accidentally if not explicitly, impose evil on us. And/or, (2) we'd believe most authorities see the acts we might consider evil as good, since, to determine whether the acts of our rulers were evil, we'd have to independently determine that was so, as our major institutions and media would call the acts imposed on us at least neutral, if not outright good.
For an example, what human-rights-trampling dictatorship, from an American or European perspective at least, doesn't call itself a democracy? We know that whether a government is or isn't a democracy is determined by examination beyond the label a government applies to itself or even what inside or outside media organizations call it. Some, perhaps many, are fooled by this. Evil people know, instinctively, that bold rule is less effective than wicked rule. To control people by fake democracy is wicked and hides acts of evil by governments.
To rule the world, thus, requires most of the global population to be unaware they are ruled by it. Rulers want maximum compliance to their rules. As I've discussed in great detail before [*5], compliance to rules is far more effective if obedience is rooted in morality. Changing morality and arguing for its imposition begets more compliance. Hence, to be effective, evil ruler, wouldn't say, "I'm going to make you do X, and X will harm you. You will do X, because, if you don't, I will harm you to a greater degree than X will." Instead, evil rulers would say, "X is moral, and refusal to do X harms others, which is immoral. People that refuse to do X are contemptible if not evil." Evil may have rules that punish non-compliance with X, but that wouldn't be the outward focus. Instead, evil would use institutions like the media and other highly-esteemed experts [*6] to convince the public that the immoral was moral, that good was evil.
So, how can reason help us determine if the world was run by evil? If all our rulers consistently imposed the same rules, we wouldn't have proof that each ruler knowingly engaged in a conspiracy, but would that make a material difference? One ruler might believe he is acting independently, but if he and hundreds of others all impose the same rules, isn't a larger authority that suggested those rules the world's true rulers? We'd look at the relative similarity of the acts being imposed to know if the world was ruled. We'd then look at the quality of the acts imposed to know they were evil.
A certain virus and the mirrored reactions to it by governments around the world provides the perfect test for us to know if the world was ruled by evil [*7]. How similar are rules all the jurisdictions of the world have imposed or are imposing? As the rules gradually change and goalposts for return to what we considered normal shift, how uniform is that shifting by our rulers? Are the acts by our rulers, like masking, lockdowns, and shift of all medicinal focus to a recurring market-model of vaccines with legal immunity for harm caused, evil?
Do you believe the world is ruled by evil? You may or may not agree that it is right now. But, at least you've left this piece with a framework to consider when you decide when, if ever, it is or was.
---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] Not everyone agrees, as deceased U.S. Justice Ruther Bader Ginsburg advocated in a 1977 paper with a former Director for the American Civil Liberties Union, in a report funded by U.S. tax payers, titled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," that the age of consent should be lowered to eleven. https://scouting4boysorg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/us-commission-on-civil-rights-sex-bias-in-the-us-code-1977.pdf
[*2] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-politics-of-masks-virtuous.html
[*3] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/02/what-is-wicked.html
[*4] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-glue-of-democratic-empires.html
[*5] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/12/election-fraud-law-violations-should.html
Evil
Modern definitions of evil are vague and unhelpful. For example, Kindle readers are linked to the Oxford Dictionary, third edition, from 2010, which states:
Evil is an immorality, wickedness, and depravity that is profound. These are evil's characteristics. It's manifested through people's actions; thus we wouldn't call animals or acts of nature evil.
Evil has effects that are harmful or undesirable. But ruling is a means to resolve human conflict. If there was no conflict, there would be no need for ruling. Any act one party views as immoral, wicked, and depraved will necessarily be viewed as, at least, undesirable if not also harmful. Thus, to rule, by this definition, is an inherent act of evil, regardless if done through representative democracy, technocratic decree by committee, or by monarch or dictator.
We need a narrower definition of evil to avoid the above dilemma. We need to define "good," and define evil as in opposition to good and good as in opposition to evil. The aforementioned dictionary defines good as "that which is morally right; righteous." Righteous is defined as "morally right or justifiable."
The dictionaries we deploy to help us in our search for good versus evil are unhelpful. Good and evil has a spiritual quality to it that human language, perhaps, can't precisely define. God is good. Satan is evil. If we look to historical references of what goes against God, perhaps we then know what is evil. Not all my readers might be religious. Is belief in God and his laws necessary to believe in evil?
Regardless, we know evil must exist. Knowledge of its existence is a necessary component of being amongst the right. If it didn't, we wouldn't have laws outlawing immoral acts. Law is an instrument to minimize the material effects of evil so civilization can prosper.
For example, we know a 40-year-old man convincing a 12-year-old boy or girl to engage in sexual acts with him is immoral [*1]. A man should be punished for this act, regardless of a 12-year-old's purported consent to it. A godless bureaucrat lawyer proposing laws might cite long-term studies on degraded mental health for the twelve-year-old and his/her inability to reasonably consent to sexual acts when justifying punishment. But is proof of harm necessary?
Aborting a child for a convenience purpose presents a similar dilemma. The mother justifies her choice to terminate the pregnancy for a convenience purpose by pointing to the inconvenience and material harm the nine months of carrying a fetus to term imposes (we assume adoption is viable). The fetus has a heart beat, and may even feel pain, but isn't conscious enough to be aware of his/her existence, yet, like a child is. The mother considers the act of inhibiting her choice to kill the fetus undesirable. If the fetus is not yet conscious enough, perhaps his/her killing shouldn't qualify as harm to human life. The harm to the mother in imposing the birth burden, however, is clear and is more visible in our material realm our various laws govern. This is the foundation for the legal perspective we call "pro-choice."
Law focuses on the seen, material sensory experience, and very little on abstractions. Pregnancy sets a chain of events in motion for a fetus to develop into a human life. If we traveled into the future post-birth, we infer the man/woman alive wouldn't consent to an abortive act through time-travel nullifying his/her existence. Disturbing the post-pregnancy chain of events leading to the birth through a killing for a convenience purpose is clearly evil. But a rational argument can be made to justify the act if we ignore this more-abstract perspective.
Can all evil be similarly rationalized? If a theoretical utilitarian (greatest good for the greatest many) argument can be made, can all killings, compelling others against their will, and/or material harm to others be justified? Is evil merely a matter of perspective?
A functional civilization requires at least a general agreement between a strong majority of its population on what acts are labeled evil versus good. Things like the marginal tax rate, unemployment benefits, or the size and scope of punishments are debatable. But no civilization can function unless near-everyone within it agrees that acts like murder, rape, and theft should be prohibited and punished in some manner. That is, a jurisdiction can't last or function unless its subjects have a general agreement on what evil is. Otherwise, obedience to and application of laws ensues conflict that can't be adequately resolved by a jurisdiction's rulers.
Do/did we all agree that wearing a mask slows the spread of COVID-19 amongst the dreaded "asymptomatic carriers?" Or do/did we all agree that wearing a mask not only doesn't do this but causes harm when worn for hours a day [*2]? Is refusal to wear a mask evil? Or, is compelling someone to wear of a mask for hours at months or years-on-end, when multiple studies show harm it can cause, evil?
A World of Evil
A core component of evil, as I've discussed before, is wickedness [*3]. In Bart Sibrel's numerous interviews, he discusses how the etymology of wicked comes from the wick of a candle, two wicks of wax twisted together, representing the truth and the lie. Wicked is mixing a degree of lie with a degree of truth in order to deceive. Outright lying is too obvious and ineffective compared to wicked acts, which are cloaked in a degree of truth.
This definition of wicked avoids discussion of good and evil. But, rarely can lying be justified for the greater good. More often, when someone is lying, especially in a wicked manner, it is to engage in acts that benefit one party at the expense of another without objection from the expensed the party, which has been deceived into accepting the act.
Maybe the whole world isn't ruled by evil, since we have multiple overlapping jurisdictions that rule over it. But, certainly some rulers of certain jurisdictions in human history were evil. How would we know if evil ruled the world?
Obvious evil, without an element of wickedness, can't rule the world due to the size of that jurisdiction. Good people would object to evil rulers by banding together into their own jurisdictions and defend themselves against outside control. Empires, regardless of whether they're good or evil, never last [*4], since they involve nations of people ruling over others. Nations of people naturally have disagreement on how best to be ruled, regardless of whether the rules imposed are evil or good, and will eventually seize an opportunity to separate and rule themselves.
The only rational way for evil to rule the world is to cloak its rule and/or its appearance. That is, (1) if we see evil effects, we wouldn't notice the proxy rulers controlling the rules we are subject to. We'd blame incompetent rulers we all independently elected or were anointed that independently, at least accidentally if not explicitly, impose evil on us. And/or, (2) we'd believe most authorities see the acts we might consider evil as good, since, to determine whether the acts of our rulers were evil, we'd have to independently determine that was so, as our major institutions and media would call the acts imposed on us at least neutral, if not outright good.
For an example, what human-rights-trampling dictatorship, from an American or European perspective at least, doesn't call itself a democracy? We know that whether a government is or isn't a democracy is determined by examination beyond the label a government applies to itself or even what inside or outside media organizations call it. Some, perhaps many, are fooled by this. Evil people know, instinctively, that bold rule is less effective than wicked rule. To control people by fake democracy is wicked and hides acts of evil by governments.
To rule the world, thus, requires most of the global population to be unaware they are ruled by it. Rulers want maximum compliance to their rules. As I've discussed in great detail before [*5], compliance to rules is far more effective if obedience is rooted in morality. Changing morality and arguing for its imposition begets more compliance. Hence, to be effective, evil ruler, wouldn't say, "I'm going to make you do X, and X will harm you. You will do X, because, if you don't, I will harm you to a greater degree than X will." Instead, evil rulers would say, "X is moral, and refusal to do X harms others, which is immoral. People that refuse to do X are contemptible if not evil." Evil may have rules that punish non-compliance with X, but that wouldn't be the outward focus. Instead, evil would use institutions like the media and other highly-esteemed experts [*6] to convince the public that the immoral was moral, that good was evil.
So, how can reason help us determine if the world was run by evil? If all our rulers consistently imposed the same rules, we wouldn't have proof that each ruler knowingly engaged in a conspiracy, but would that make a material difference? One ruler might believe he is acting independently, but if he and hundreds of others all impose the same rules, isn't a larger authority that suggested those rules the world's true rulers? We'd look at the relative similarity of the acts being imposed to know if the world was ruled. We'd then look at the quality of the acts imposed to know they were evil.
A certain virus and the mirrored reactions to it by governments around the world provides the perfect test for us to know if the world was ruled by evil [*7]. How similar are rules all the jurisdictions of the world have imposed or are imposing? As the rules gradually change and goalposts for return to what we considered normal shift, how uniform is that shifting by our rulers? Are the acts by our rulers, like masking, lockdowns, and shift of all medicinal focus to a recurring market-model of vaccines with legal immunity for harm caused, evil?
Do you believe the world is ruled by evil? You may or may not agree that it is right now. But, at least you've left this piece with a framework to consider when you decide when, if ever, it is or was.
---
FOOTNOTES
[*1] Not everyone agrees, as deceased U.S. Justice Ruther Bader Ginsburg advocated in a 1977 paper with a former Director for the American Civil Liberties Union, in a report funded by U.S. tax payers, titled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," that the age of consent should be lowered to eleven. https://scouting4boysorg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/us-commission-on-civil-rights-sex-bias-in-the-us-code-1977.pdf
[*2] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-politics-of-masks-virtuous.html
[*3] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/02/what-is-wicked.html
[*4] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-glue-of-democratic-empires.html
[*5] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2020/12/election-fraud-law-violations-should.html
[*6] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-role-of-media-in-post-democratic-era.html… Let's start with an old thought experiment. A sum of cash sits in a room. Do people steal the cash? The experiment's goal is to parse out four types of people: (1) people who risk taking the cash even when there is risk of being caught, (2) people who take the cash when there is virtually no risk of being caught, (3) people that don't take the cash when there is a risk of being caught, and (4) people who still don't take the cash even though there is no risk of being caught.
If men were angels, no laws would be needed, as all would be in category (4). Category (1) is the metric to measure whether a functional society is even possible, as too many people willing to risk consequences to steal or unjustly harm others breaks civil society. A government can only effectively rule over a society with X number of category (1) people. What X is, I can't quantify, but it must be a very low number, as government can only employ so much law enforcement to maintain a civilization, let alone create one.
This leaves us with how to manage category (2) versus (3). Law makes no difference in the conduct of angels, but it can make people act ethically who otherwise would not. This is the chief justification for law or consequences imposed by an authority for unethical behavior. ...
[*7] https://stratagemsoftheright.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-broken-thumb-heuristics-in-fall-of.html
Comments
Post a Comment